Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The wording of the illustration presupposes that there is a functional normal curb. If the curb is missing, damaged, too low, of course there is no reason to turn your wheels into the inoperative curb.
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
Darius, take a deep breath. It's really not that hard. Common sense, knowledge and driving defensively will be your friend. Forget about your Europe, your in the good ole U.S.A.
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
I am guessing we are talking a four way stop? If so, you have the right of way since the approaching car has not even stopped yet. They will have to stop, and you will be long gone by the time they get going.
Now, if they do not stop, then they ran the stop-sign... and would be at fault.
I'm practicing for my DMV test and I've encountered something I don't agree with. Can anybody tell is it me, or is there a mistake in here? Screenshot attached.
If public education taught us one thing it is that the correct answer is the "expected answer"! Not necessarily the correct answer by logic or fact.
It appears you are thinking too much on this.
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
I don't know where you're getting all these confused ideas, but you don't have it right.
Even without having been in Europe, I am sure that if you are at an intersection and there is a car approaching the intersection from the right, but is a quarter of a mile away, you are not required to sit and wait for that car to arrive and clear the intersection. Why? Because you got there first.
I'm sure the same is true in California. The "yield on right" rule is a way of determining what to do not when one car gets there first, but when they arrive at the same time. Here's the way the rule is phrased in Vermont law:
The key question is whether the two vehicles arrived at approximately the same time.
The Vermont law also says that "(3) All intersecting highways shall be approached and entered slowly, with due care to avoid accidents." If you drove into an intersection where there was a car already there, or where you saw that you were going to cause an accident if you continued to go, the fact that you had the right of way isn't going to save you.
Just use commonsense and don't overthink this so much! In my state (as throughout the whole US), the car on the right typically has the right-of-way. I'm not sure if there is, encoded anywhere, another law about who arrives first at the intersection (meaning cars which arrive at the intersection within a very short period of time, almost at the same time.) Perhaps. BUT, commonsense and safety dictates what should happen. If you're stopped at an intersection and the car on the right - whether they legally have the right-of-way or not - is approaching rapidly and shows no sign of stopping, you just let them go. More often than not I find that if I'm at the intersection first, the car on the right will yield to me anyway if it's apparent that I have been waiting, even if I don't really have the right-of-way. And the car which arrives at the intersection first certainly has no duty to stay waiting just because there's some car on the right in their distant view.
Sometimes you have that experience (illustrated to the extreme for comic effect in an episode of the show Portlandia) where nobody quite knows if the other person will let them go, so both drivers alternate waving the other driver on, and inching out into traffic. It typically all works out in the end. It's not that hard... for the exam, answer the expected answer. In practice, do what seems the most safe. Don't get wrapped up into whether you, or the other person, legally has the right-of-way. Even if you have the right of way, you have a duty to act according to the specifics of the situation in which you find yourself. Drive defensively.
(EDIT: I was typing this while the above poster posted his comment, and I see we're pretty much in agreement. Good illustration with the specific wording of the Vermont law.)
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
Are you suggeting that there are intersections in Europe where no vehicles are required to stop? I've never seen one here.
The only place I see your question making any sense is at a 4 way stop. All vehicles are expected to stop, then proceed in the order in which they arrived. If a conflict arises, then the vehicle on the right has the right of way. If any further conflict arises, then it's up to the drivers to figure it out, as far as I know.
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
"yield to the vehicle or bicycle that arrives first, OR to the vehicle or bicycle on your right if it reaches the intersection the same time as you."
Never assume nor insist that you have the right-of-way.
If you follow this guideline and you both managed to run into each other at a 4-way stop then both are at fault so whoever's got the stronger insurance company wins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
